On the Ventriloquist against Origen

^A its movements; nor again is any athlete, whether wrestling with agility, or performing the pancratium most roughly, or boxing, or beating the air, to be judged by empty flourishes; but it is appropriate for those fighting to stand together against their opponents, that from one or the other the superiority might be discerned. So that the statements of Origen are to be put forward first, and in a separate order, the mind that opposes them must be zealously examined.

II. That we should consider the history

II. Let us, therefore, consider the text of this history ^B as far as is possible, beginning from where it is proper to start. When Saul was presiding in the best manner over the great multitude of the people, he cast out, he says, all the ventriloquists, and those called by name "knowers" [gnostas], as being, in sooth, most hostile pests who lay in wait. But when, having turned toward the worst things, he was bitterly driven by the villainous demon, he betook himself again to the phantasms of their divination, rebuilding what he had dismantled a little before, proving himself thereby a transgressor. For as the surrounding aliens were with unanimous zeal declaring the beginning of war, having gathered their phalanxes as fully as possible and drawn them up against him, and having bared their weapons in readiness for battle, they demanded combat with the greatest intensity of spirit; but the wretched Saul, seeing the very fortress of the camp itself enclosed and covered by the ^C weapons of the enemies, and, to say it in total, was struck with amazement, as the divine Scripture declares. And after this it says that he asked through the Lord, desiring to know what was to be done; but the Lord did not answer him at all on account of the excess of his unrighteousness, neither in dreams, nor in manifestations, nor in the prophets. For to Saul, acting wickedly and impiously, the Divine gives no answer. But what does he contrive thereafter, being destitute of divine aid? He does not appease God with iterated prayers and assiduous cultivation of the soul; but rather, leaping away to contrary and conflicting pursuits, he violates the laws more and more. He orders his servants to seek out a ventriloquist woman, so that, approaching her, he might inquire as if at an oracle. ^D When, by those most wicked ministers, she was immediately revealed as a fanatic, Saul, having promptly changed his appearance and put on different garments, flew off in haste, having left his army. And when he had arrived at her, along with two men, by night, he addressed her as a suppliant at that time, saying: “Divine for me through the ventriloquist, and make him whom I shall tell you to ascend for me.” Therefore, if Saul begged to have divination performed through the ventriloquist, would anyone assert that her voices were true? But who is ignorant that he, having turned to deplored divinations and the diabolical operations of fables, was driven by a savage demon in immense fury? Does not God, who placed words into the mouth of Balaam, and commanded Moses to write expressly in Numbers

^A *For there is no enchantment in Jacob, nor divination in Israel*? If therefore such things are established as forbidden, as execrable and loathsome abominations and causes of the most hateful idolatry, how can the witness who attempted to use them most impiously be reliable? But we shall speak of this more fully, returning to it a little later; we must now return to the history of the letter.

III. As soon as the woman caught sight of the deranged Saul, pretending not to know the prince, she countered by saying that he himself should know better, given all the terrible things Saul had done to those skilled in such matters, ^B and how he had exterminated the ventriloquists and those who bring up voices from the earth; for this reason she claimed that a snare was being set for her life. And since, having confirmed it with an oath, he assured her that she would suffer no harm, the woman, her wickedness emboldened, answered more freely: "Whom," she says, "shall I conjure up for you?" What sort of creature was this wretched old woman, that she would promise ^C to bring up Samuel from the dead? And indeed, if one must set aside the question of dignity, it must be admitted that she was not only unable to call up a prophetic soul, but not even that of anyone else, not even an ant or a flea; for demons do not have authority over spirits and souls, but rather God alone, who governs all and commands all. Therefore, the power to recall and summon souls from Hades must be attributed to the divine nature alone. But the clever Origen, wishing to introduce the instruments of idolatry and the deceptions of necromancy into the ecclesiastical choir, ^D lies against the Holy Scripture. For while the Scripture itself openly and clearly declares that the woman said: "Whom shall I conjure up for you?", he reverses this, claiming that the person of the Holy Spirit spoke these words. Then he was led astray so far that he does not blush to attribute to the Holy Spirit the words of an epileptic woman; and by uttering such things with unbridled tongue, he refers the whole matter to the Holy Spirit, attempting to win over his hearers with a name worthy of faith. As I have said, the woman asked, as if she had the power to summon the dead: "Whom," she says, "shall I conjure up for you?" And when the inquirer said to bring up Samuel, she then adds: And the woman saw Samuel, he says, and cried out with a loud voice and said to the prince: "Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul." And when the king said to her: "Fear not, and what hast thou seen?", the pythoness, answering again, brought forth the reply: "I have seen gods ascending from the earth." And when finally the prince asked: "What is his form?", she replied immediately with the words: "A man upright ascending from the earth; and he is covered with a mantle." What furthermore does the sacred Scripture report? And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and bowed himself upon his face.

upon the ground, and worshipped him. It appears, therefore, that in no way at all does the interpretation of the divine Scripture say that Samuel was brought up by the ventriloquist; but she herself, speaking primarily through the demon that goaded her into a frenzy, declares that he must be brought up; then, also, by boastfully pretending to see gods ascending, she fraudulently gave the signs of the man as a snare; and the demented Saul, from what he had heard, perceived that this was indeed Samuel.

^B IV. Whether, therefore, faith ought to be placed either in the demon that vexed Saul, as if he possessed a true and exact knowledge, or in the demon who speaks boastfully of himself and promises to bring up the souls of the just from Hades, let us judge and discern among ourselves, O best of men, Eutropius, how vain and impious it is to imagine these and similar things. For it is wondrous how far, it seems, Origen went astray from the truth, even though our Lord Jesus Christ has spoken explicitly concerning the devil: "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." What then do you say, O Origen? For it is necessary to ask you whether these things which the Savior has spoken are true, or will you, in answering, suggest the contrary? If, therefore, the words of the Lord are, as is always the case, true, then the ^C demon, in his bold insolence, lied; but if you define the words of the demon as devoid of falsehood, you dare to demonstrate the Lord himself to be a liar. Do you see into what absurdity the principle you advocate has fallen? For while demons are sometimes compelled by the torments of their pain to speak the truth against their will, they would never of their own volition speak anything without falsehood. But if anyone shall affirm that a demon can call up the just from Hades, how will it not be manifest that he is foisting a lie through fraud, with the intent of casting someone into a headlong act of ruin? Yes, he says, but it is not the demon that said these things, but the narrative voice of the writer; and we believe the writer of the words to be the Holy Spirit, and not a human being. Does he then not perceive how this appears contrary to the interpretation of the narrative? Better, therefore, do those understand who have discussed these matters in a more scholarly fashion, that the narrative voice of the writer ^D set forth these things as what the ventriloquist appeared to be doing or saying to the consulting Saul; for the writer, recounting the story about her and setting forth her words verbatim, said: "And the woman said: Whom shall I bring up for you?" Who is so foolish and dull-witted as to pretend not to understand that these are not the words of the writer, but of the woman who is possessed by the demon? But indeed, if one had to speak the truth, the narrative would only have said this: "The woman saw Samuel." He surely wrote these things as one speaking to those who already know about the woman possessed by a demon. For it is not to be questioned that a demon does not lead up the soul of anyone, which, being bounded by pious men, is driven away, scorched...

^A beaten with rods, and flees, abandoning the dwelling place, nor would the crazed woman have caught sight of it, as was fitting for her, in the shape of a hallucination she had imagined for herself. For the beast is accustomed to changing himself into many and various forms, so that, to speak with the divine Paul, ^B *for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light* (II Cor. xi, 14). It is no wonder, then, if, while arguing, he applied this passage of Scripture, thinking he was describing with precision those who assert the truth, to which he added this in order to confirm his own opinion, though without any skill.

V. And why, he says, is it not said, "The woman saw a demon, which feigned itself to be Samuel," but instead it is written, ^B "Saul perceived that it was Samuel"? Then, proceeding further, he adds: "If it were not Samuel, it ought to have been written: 'And Saul thought it was Samuel.' But now it is written: 'Saul perceived.' Now, no one perceives that which is not. Therefore, Saul perceived that it was Samuel. He fell face down to the ground and worshipped him." So that I may not, by straying, move toward other examples, I shall pose the question here, using those very things which he wrote, and then I will walk through the remaining examples. ^C And tell me, by God, what do you say to this, Origen? Did the woman bring up Samuel in his own body, or was he shrouded in the form of a shadow? For if she brought him up bodiless, then she did not raise Samuel, but some phantom of a spirit; for Samuel is a man, constituted of soul and body, he who possesses a mixture of both in proportion. But if she brought up the man with his whole body, why then did Saul not see him? For if he had seen him with his own eyes, he would not have questioned the woman, as if ^D he did not see, uttering those very words: "What did you see?" Therefore, if he escaped the gaze of the eyes, undoubtedly he was also without a body. If he appeared in the form of something bodiless, why then did the pythoness say the opposite, that she had seen "a man standing, coming up from the earth," and "clothed in a mantle," according to the previous custom? Thus, the facts themselves, Origen, fight against your arguments. Saul himself, since he had seen nothing at all, questioned her as if speaking about an invisible phantom, saying: "What did you see?" But she, on the other hand, as if she had looked upon a man, cried out: "A man standing, ascending from the earth." And in order to persuade him that it is a man, she describes his features, adding: "And he is wrapped in a mantle." Why, therefore, O teacher of sacrilegious divination, if he were a man, did Saul not see him? Unless you wish to affirm that even the eyes, which are subject to sense, were blinded, just as you only affirm this of the intellect, which is the part that perceives the intelligible.

VI. But since you are easily refuted, perhaps you might say that the instrument of the soul was at that moment formed into human shape, so that, appearing, it might foretell the future through a prophetic announcement—just as it happens sometimes in dreams.

^A And spirits and souls attend upon men with all their members complete, bearing human shapes before them; in which you may perceive not just one, but various garments, as well as the marks of scars, stamps, and weals, and indeed the signs of blows and wounds impressed upon them. If, therefore, you determine that it is only a soul that has been summoned, and not a man with his actual body—which, even if you wished it to be so, the sequence of Scripture will not allow—do you not perceive that you are saying things that are contradictory and at war with yourself?

Someone might present this objection to you: Why did the woman not say, "I saw a prophetic soul," but rather the opposite, "a man standing upright"? And for that same reason which you intimate, why did Scripture not express it thus: "The woman saw a demon that was pretending to be Samuel"? In this same way, I would present an objection back to you: Why, when the soul was summoned, did she not say she saw a soul, if the situation were as you say? Why, on the contrary, did she say she saw a man, and an upright one at that—which is a sign of bodily well-being? For the sorceress did not claim to see a hunched, bent, or stooped old man, ^B but one standing, intense, erect, filled with youthful vigor for battle, prompt for wickedness, practicing a deception on the mad Saul. And she persuaded him with the argument that it was a man coming up from the earth, and she declared that he was wrapped in a mantle. What, then, could anyone say here? If that man who appeared were emerging in his actual body, would Saul not have seen him himself, rather than trying to learn from someone else who it was, as if struck by blindness?

The matter itself, therefore, cries out that he was not a man, but a shadow, as it appears, dark and deceptive; for if he were a man, he would not have escaped human eyes. And if you imagine, Origen, that the soul of Samuel was there, why did the shadow appear wrapped in a mantle? It is obvious, indeed, ^C that clothes, garments, and coverings befit bodies rather than souls. For I do not think that you, responding with urbanity and wit, would even say in pretense that that mantle had been preserved in the sepulcher for so many years until that day, so that the prophet’s soul might wear it, lest it wander about elsewhere naked. And certainly, one might say that no one is ignorant that garments are prepared for the saints from heaven, subject to no corruption, shining widely with brilliant lights, and not poorly struck by a weaver’s comb.

But if you maintain that that phantom was indeed the soul of Samuel, and you assert that the garment was only perceived by the intellect so that the principle of that rite might be manifested—and both of these are specific to intelligible ^D realities—then it is proven that the sorceress uttered nothing sound or true. For she declared things to be other than they were, swapping the names of things that fall under the senses and manifesting intelligible things. Therefore, by calling him an "upright man" and a "woven textile garment, handmade," which was not seen, she was introducing a phantasmal spirit by way of opposites.

VII. Come then, tell me, O most excellent dogmatist, how did Saul know that this was Samuel, when he did not see even the smallest fragment of a shadow, let alone the appearance of a man?

And are you not ashamed to say, "It should have been written: 'And Saul thought that it was Samuel,'" when it is written: "Saul knew"? Furthermore, you drone on everywhere that he who was vexed by a demon knew what he knew by hearing it from the demoniac woman; but you pass over in silence the fact that he saw absolutely nothing anywhere, nor do you bring forth any refutation, intending to deceive simple men and to instill in everyone a new and impious form of divination. For indeed, the knowledge of the one vexed by a demon was worthy of the proclamation of the one who was also supplying the words to him. But by way of knowledge and wisdom, you might say that he knew without having seen, but he did not "think." Every man, at any rate, upon receiving a matter by hearing rather than by sight, opines and believes, not knowing what is certain, especially if he has derived it from a demonic person. For only the words of God possess the firmness for accurate comprehension and the bulwark of faith. For if the psalmist wrote concerning men, "I said in my ecstasy: Every man is a liar," how much more fittingly can this be said concerning a demented woman? ^B Next, you say that no one knows what is not, as if you were conversing with children. Tell me, therefore, how he knew what *was*, if he did not see it while inquiring—neither the man standing upright, nor the Ephod that it was wearing, nor the high-priestly garment—but, seeing nothing anywhere, was tossing himself about with empty words, just as, indeed, you toss about the unstable with your own shallowness? But the historiographer, having prefixed the name "engastrimyth," first made clear what kind of person she was—namely, agitated by furies—and then described the vision as having been seen by him, as it behoves those of sound mind to understand concerning one who is deranged; for no one would suppose that someone who is mentally afflicted sees things as they ought to be viewed. In the same way, he said that the deranged Saul "knew" while he was consulting the medium, in such a way that it would be proper to think concerning him, who for so many periods of years was being bitterly driven by the demon, and to discern, just as it was fitting, how he who was seized and agitated by the wicked demon in so many alterations of soul was being driven. ^{C D} VIII. And that these things are so, the facts themselves proclaim with a most clear voice. But so that I may confirm the matter I have proposed by another example, come, let us bring forward the history of the prophet Elijah, when they wished to judge the superiority of each side in the offering of sacrifice, and no one dared to apply fire, but rather to subject it to prayer so that fire might be drawn down from heaven, in order that, with a sign sent down from heaven, it might be clear to all which was the God that could both hear and drive away the kindled fires, from which the dignity of the superior one would shine forth, and what was better would appear. When, however, he first commanded them to perform the work, they, having selected a bullock, were cutting it up according to their custom and calling upon the four-formed incantation of the one called Baal, yet they accomplished nothing—nothing at all. But even they were gashing themselves according to their custom with swords, he says, and with lances until the shedding of blood; then, in addition to these things, the narrator of the account adds: And they were prophesying until the evening passed. Since, therefore, Scripture does not expound [index: entries preserved]

did not distinguish whether they were prophesying what was true or what was false, should someone perhaps argue on that account that those were true prophets? For it would have been necessary to say, according to Origen's own decision, that they were prophesying as they supposed, creating nothing but falsehoods. For it was not right that prescience should occur in them; and yet he writes in a clear and ^A explicit tone: And they were prophesying until the evening passed. Does not the very course of events and their outcomes prove these things to be similar to them? For if the author of both cases is the same, it follows that one should elicit the same meaning from both. But just as here, by prefixing the term for idolaters, he indicated to us that we ought to consider them as false prophets bereft of all foreknowledge; so too there, by prefixing persons agitated by a demon and the deeds of unlawful divination, by means of silence he indicated what those who are prudent ought to think regarding those who are insane.

IX. Truly, if I wished to bring forward testimonies of similar matters, perhaps time would fail us in the speaking; yet it will be sufficient if I bring forward another example of this affair. For in the history of Exodus 19 it is related how the Lord himself commanded Moses and Aaron to cast their rod upon the ground before Pharaoh, so that, having changed its form into a terrible prodigy in their sight, it might terrify the Egyptians. When this had been done to the greatest admiration of all, the ruler, mocked by thoughtless folly, summoned together both the wise men and the magicians of Egypt: And the Egyptian magicians also did, he ^B said, in like manner by their enchantments; and they cast down every man his rod, and they became dragons: and Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods 20. It is reported furthermore 21 that the Egyptian magicians likewise produced blood and frogs. ^C Since, therefore, the narrative does not here divide the actions of individuals, but confesses that the magicians did likewise; is one on that account to say that the things performed by the magicians are similar to those things that came to pass through Moses? Not at all, one might say, since it is not even fitting to say that such curious and superstitious things are to be likened to things made by God. Whatever Moses performed carried truth before it; but whatever the magicians were undertaking deceived the sight by imagination only; for the lie was sufficiently and abundantly mocked by the weakness of the things themselves. Since, by what reason did one rod suddenly devour all those many ^D others? Nor is it right for the mind to conceive how they could make things out of inanimate objects act in one stroke as if they were animate. For then perhaps those who had the faculty to imbue dead wood with a soul would be superior to us. Nor would Moses himself be performing anything worthy of admiration if he performed things similar to those. Wherefore it is just to show that these are of no moment by the very words of Scripture. For if God, in order to repel the injuries of the Egyptians and punish them, commanded all the floods of the waters to be changed into blood; if they, receiving similar plagues, were to change the water-courses into blood,

^A why do they ask and entreat, being pressed by thirst, to be cleansed of the water throughout all Egypt from that blood-bearing mixture? Or, if again, suddenly seeing an infinite number of frogs, why, when they were troubled by the crowd of them, did they fashion others, unless they did not care for those appearing in the shadow and in the form of a phantom, but were terribly harmed by those others shown in reality? For no one would choose to add an innumerable multitude to an enemy multitude, instead of enlisting raw soldiers as allies; nor would one plagued by a fever light another fever, desiring to be delivered from the first, nor would one whipped by the force of intolerable blows add other blows to himself, while beseeching with pure heart's affection and prayer and supplication to be released. Nay, not even of those whose houses are burning, instead of applying engines to extinguish the fire, would anyone, by pouring on oil or pitch, raise the flame to an immeasurable height; for the burning fire increases the suffering more, and he waters fire with fire in senseless fashion. In this way, then, by the things which the sorcerers ambitiously sought to do, they brought out clear proofs that they thought they must entertain themselves with a phantasmagorical conceit. It is then not difficult to see from this that even now the tricksters in the theaters are accustomed to perform many more and greater things than these; but yet, by the impromptu power of these things, they were seized in the act; nevertheless, the narrative voice writes beforehand: *And the sorcerers of the Egyptians did by their enchantments likewise* (Exodus 7:22). It was necessary, therefore, as the dogmatist Origen laid it down as a law, to say: *But the sorcerers of the Egyptians did similar things in appearance*; and not to say *likewise*, so that no one might suppose they were moved by the same power. For if they were able to do things similar to those around Moses, they could have defended themselves against their opponents with equal measures, so that the struggles would have been on equal terms from both sides; but if no one was harmed by what they fashioned, then he abuses the word, and the manifestations of the inanimate phantom become clear. Just as here, too, by prefixing the name of the sorcerers and the pursuits of magic, the author showed that there should be no doubt at all that each of the things done by the magicians was performed with sorcerous curiosity; such are the dramas recorded in this history. For by calling her an engastrimyth ^C (ventriloquist), and then refuting the impious findings of divination, and showing the person who was being possessed by a demon to be also the one who was divining, he has fully revealed that she performed each thing through deceptions and false phantasms. But these things must be understood by us in this way.

X. Let us again unfold the traces of the words. What then, as Saul asked the engastrimyth, *What sawest thou?* (1 Kings 28:13), saying? In the first place, the mad woman replied in answer: *And I saw gods ascending out of the earth* ^D; for because the devil wished to bring the man to ruin in every way by seizing him,

^A he openly endeavored to show that the demon had the power at its own discretion to call up not only one soul of a just man, but all the souls of holy men at once. And there, having drawn up the hostile army of demons arrayed in battle, and having gathered the assembly in the twinkling of an eye, he boasted—persuading them by this means, as he wished all to believe, that he himself was the God who gathers the others. That he is accustomed to deify himself by his own innate folly, Isaiah, rebuking him face-to-face, proclaims with prophetic and sacred utterances: *But you said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will set my throne above the stars; I will sit on an exalted mountain, upon the lofty mountains that look towards the North; I will ascend above the clouds; I will be like the Most High*. To these things, the Lord himself through the prophet Ezekiel openly bears similar witness, explicitly: *Because your heart was exalted, and you said: I am God, I will dwell in the heart of the sea; yet you are a man, and not God*. What punishments He threatens against him for this, it will be easy to see from those things which are said below. But by divine oracle ^B it is manifest that he relies on similar phantasms by boasting daily. Therefore, if the demon that is distinguished by the name of gods could bring them up, is it not necessary to believe that the one who calls them up is superior to those who are called up? But if he is superior to the saints, it must be asserted that the prince of demons is also superior to him. If anyone grants these things, he has demonstrated by arguments to which there is no answer that he holds the position of God of gods, who grants such power to his ministers that they can lead the spirits and souls of the just up from Hades. These things, as long as one is of sound mind, no one will affirm at all, lest he be seen to cast a black stone against the divine testimonies. For when the madman had asked ^C, adding: *And he said to the woman: What did you see?* the woman immediately answering the questions said: *I saw a man upright coming up out of the earth, and he is clothed with a mantle*. And although she saw no one at all, when she heard the words, she perceived and knew—as she imagined to herself—that this was Samuel, since she was being besieged from within by the demon. But as she was carried away by the naming of the signs, she then inclined her face to the earth and worshipped him. In the first place, one could very rightly say that if it had been Samuel, and not the wily serpent transformed, he would have answered with a pious intention: *You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve*. Secondly, I would again add that when Samuel was ruling the whole people and held the first rank among the prophets, Saul was still hiding within private walls; and while seeking his father's donkeys, ^D approaching him as a prophet to inquire about the lost beasts, it is found that he in no way worshipped him, even though he needed his help and was clearly subject to him as the leader of the people. How, therefore, does one who, as a private man, did not worship the prince, now, as a king, worship a private man? To these things, I will add a third: why, when he heard of "gods ascending," did he see none of them...

yet when he heard that the man had ascended upright, did he then worship and submit? ^A And yet, as Origen asserted too audaciously, if those were angels or choirs of prophets, they themselves, as being superior, ought to have been worshipped. Therefore, from all these deeds taken together, it is easy to see that Saul’s ruling mind was blinded, being driven by the demon, while the devil, shifting himself into various forms, was contriving to be worshipped by the ruler, so that by this he might deceive as many as possible, who were unwittingly submitting to him. And yet, it is not strange to say that, even where he saw the person of Christ, whom he saw inwardly by deed and action as God, and by nature the genuine Son of God, yet surrounded by a man who was pure, undefiled, and spotless, ^B and he beheld him as a most fair, consecrated, and inviolable temple, he nonetheless, approaching, incorrectly tempted him, intending a fight with God after his own fashion and manner. But when he was defeated again and again, having provoked him to battle, he was miserably shattered; and adopting a new guise, he dared to display to him all the circuit of this world and its kingdoms, and emboldened by madness and falsehood, he boasted: "All these things I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Such were the voices the impious one uttered here, thinking to provoke to wrath the character of forbearance, and under such guises to seem to gain a hold. But the Lord, as was worthy of God, silenced the wicked one by his long-suffering; for it would be proper to God to bear all things patiently. If, therefore, it was of little concern to him to utter such things to the Lord himself, how is it not clear that, wishing to be worshipped as God, he was doing these things? This, I think, is manifest to all of sound mind: that through a frenzied woman he deceived the mindless ruler into submitting to him contrary to what was right.

XI

^A at Philippi; and how, when he had enlightened a certain damsel in the knowledge of piety, she came to meet him, as he says, having a spirit of Python, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. Therefore, she followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying thus: "These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation." And she did this for many days; but the demon, being scourged by an invisible lash, was forced against his will to utter such cries; but Paul, regarding testimony from such a source as not to be trusted—and most rightly—being grieved, said to the spirit, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." Then the author, narrating the deed, adds: "And he came out the same hour." When, therefore, the masters of the handmaid saw that the hope of their gain had vanished utterly, they caught Paul and Silas and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers; and through outrages and stripes they caused them to be badly handled, stirring up a sedition ^B by their slanderous accusations. If, therefore, Paul, by rebuking the spirit, drove out the pythoness at once in that very moment, and the spirit fled by the power of the word, being unable to sustain the sound of the tongue, then let him who approves that opinion—whereby the demon, by the power of authority, brought up Samuel against his will, who was of the same mind as Paul—come forward into the open and say: By what excellence of power did the demon bring up Samuel from Hades against his will, calling him forth? But he would not be able to demonstrate that any of these things is true. So that even from these things, it is very easy to see that it was the deceiver who, having transformed himself, spoke to Saul, saying: "Why hast thou disquieted me?" ^C For he hinted that he had ascended against his will, not desiring it, but by necessity and force, as if he had been ordered to be sent by him who is superior. But the king, answering him, said: "I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God," he says, "is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: and now I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do." Again, therefore, it must be answered: If that illustrious Samuel had been a prophet, would he not have brought the man to a better way of life with his admonitions? Would he not have said to him first: Tell me, most miserable of all men, if the strangers compass you about, preparing to join battle in firm array, if God hath departed from thee and hath not answered thee at all, and the prophets, while they undertake mediation for thee, perceive nothing, ^D and thou art not admonished as to what must be done, whether sleeping or waking; oughtest thou not rather to have fallen to the ground there and rendered God propitious to thee, and to have washed away the causes of thy sins by the distribution of alms to the poor, rather than to have fled to a ventriloquist soothsayer and to have exchanged the marks of piety for a frantic divination, and to have added to thy own woe twofold? For is it not to be understood that such pollutions are expressly

^A forbidden by God in Leviticus through Moses, when He said: "Ye shall not follow after them that have familiar spirits, neither shall ye cleave to the wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God"? But dost thou think that these abominations, which are contrary to God, are not impious, when thou attemptest to create a drama out of them? ^B Hear, furthermore, what God also proclaims concerning such an act of daring: "And the soul," He says, "that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, or after wizards, to go a-whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people." If, then, God, having from the beginning established the law with rigorous decrees, sent forth such as entangle themselves in these sorceries or divinations, and threatens in a terrible manner grievous and murky places of torment against those caught in them—ought not one who had been consecrated to God from the tenderest years, as they say, and was a firm observer of the laws, have been the first to denounce these things? ^C But why did not he who had been instructed in the laws from childhood, and was able to know the legal scriptures most exactly, search out this error, lest through it some, miserably deceived by fraud, might be snatched away into frantic divinations? But he said or sought nothing of this; for it was not Samuel, but he who had been contriving such dramas from the beginning. To these things, moreover, he answers, having assumed the guise of the prophet, saying: "Why askest thou of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy? And the Lord hath done to thee, as He spake by my hand." These things, therefore, he brings in as an enemy, while simultaneously simulating a departure, and he reads the records of the accusation.

XII.

and thought that he ought to offer up to the Lord the burnt offerings from these things as first-fruits. But if one should inquire with more accurate precision and knowledge, he would find that Samuel had indeed foretold all these words at that time, word for word. For he said, "The Lord hath rent the kingdom from thy hand," ^A at the time when the ruler grasped and tore the hem of his cloak; and further, he predicted to him that the kingdom was to be given to his neighbor, who was better than he, and he prophesied also in what manner Israel ought, on account of this, to be divided and never again return. Having made these statements, he confirmed what was to be said with deeds as well; for not long after, having been sent by divine judgment, he anointed David as king. Did then the one who is said to have been raised up through the engastrimyth ^B declare anything strange? Rather, he was mimicking, with deceptive guile and a plausible artifice of tautology, those things which had been spoken by Samuel before, pretending to speak prophetically. But just as itinerant soothsayers, hastening to go to the doors of the wealthy, stealthily and sedulously inquire into the affairs of each person that have happened long ago, and, appearing to speak of events that occurred much earlier on the spur of the moment, they immediately strike their hearers with amazement, and, having led them into a foolish belief, they fabricate whatever they wish regarding the future: so too, the specter of the engastrimyth, assuming a new form, uttered those same prophetic oracles of Samuel, ^C and yet to all appearances it thought it was prophesying, although it knew nothing. But it set forth the words of another as its own and terrified that miserable man, and through these things it easily misled him and stole away his mind. What else, then, was added after this? "And thou," he says, "tomorrow, and thy son Jonathan shall be with me, and the Lord shall deliver the host of Israel into the hands of the Philistines." ^D But the demon claimed even these things as if they were its own.

XIII. Whether he truly foretold, as he thought; and whether he uttered it by design or by chance and accident; and furthermore, whether he was able to presage anything at all.

XIII. It must be investigated whether he predicted truly, as he supposed; and whether he spoke by design or by mere chance and coincidence; and furthermore, whether he was able to possess foreknowledge of anything. In the first place, it does not appear that Saul was destroyed on the following day, as the speaking specter claimed. For if, having heard these words, he did not eat bread all that day and all that night due to overwhelming grief, as the divine Scripture testifies, and after this the woman again exhorted and advised him to taste food, since he had a journey ahead of him—it is manifest that on the second day, after that daily and nightly fast, she persuaded him to rise from his prostrate position on the ground and sit more decently on the seat. While she promptly took the calf she had, which was still nursing, she slaughtered it; and, kneading unleavened bread and preparing the meal, she served it. When she had offered it, excellently prepared and arranged, to the king and those with him, the king, softened by her admonitions, partook of the food. It must then be understood, if he rushed out from there at night, that he returned to his station at other hours of the night. So that now...

^A the demon is clearly detected in his lying. For it did not happen as he had said, "Tomorrow you shall be with me," since he remained there the following day without food; and then, on the second day, having tasted food, he made his way to the camp. Nor is he convicted of lying and reporting things differently than they turned out only by this, but he also said that Jonathan alone was to perish together with his father; yet, on the contrary, the narrative voice of the Scripture declares that Saul was slaughtered along with his three sons, and not by himself alone, as that one had said. Therefore, for lack of foreknowledge, the demon spoke nothing true; for he would not have reported things contrary to what occurred; but having stolen, as I said, the things spoken earlier by Samuel, he added a few items to these, interweaving things similar to the probabilities. Thus, then, he threatened the ruler with death, abusing the words of that man; moreover, he promised that he would deliver the camp of Israel, because the prophet had said with weight that "the people shall be scattered." Seeing, therefore, the machines of war drawn up, and the leader of the people terrified, and moreover also abandoned by God himself (from which things the ruler, guessing, acknowledged that the prophecy of the prophet was coming to pass there), he feigned to deliver ^B oracles regarding the present stirrings. Whatever he added of his own, however, he was clearly caught lying; for he was able to predict neither the day of death nor the slaughter of the sons of Saul, whose names the Scripture recorded. From these things it would not be hard to fathom that the spirit reported nothing own and nothing true; but when he stole the footsteps of Samuel, he thought that by appropriating these he was prophesying. But even more, it is not possible to say that he prophesied this without lying; and if he did indeed proclaim the origin of war and the incurable streams of bloodshed, who is the cause of all wars? Is it not the devil himself? Did he not demand Job for himself? Did he not incite an inexorable war against him? Did he not, having frequently changed himself into various forms, exist as at once messenger and witness and the tribune of soldiers, ^C penetrating into the vitals of men?

XIV. But this form and figure seems obscure to many; one must therefore proceed accordingly into the traces of the Third Book of Kings. It appears, then, how the prophet Micaiah is questioned by Ahab; but since he was compelled to speak the truth openly, he said that he had seen the Lord sitting upon His throne, and then that the heavenly armies were standing around Him simultaneously on the right and on the left; and together with the history of the vision, he also said that he heard a voice of this kind: "Who will deceive Ahab, and he will ascend into Ramoth-gilead, and he will fall there?" Then he says (so that, passing over the things in the middle, I might speak the required part): "A spirit came forth and stood before the Lord, and said: I will deceive him." And when the Lord, having countered, asked, "By what?" he counters in return: "I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." To these things, the ^D Better One said: "You will deceive and you will prevail. And now, go forth and do so." When the prophet had recounted these things to the king, he immediately adds:

"The Lord has given a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has spoken evil against you" (3 Kings 22:23). Therefore, since it is necessary to understand this spirit that was the author of the lie as being not good but evil, it follows that this must also be believed to have been an instrument of the devil. But since it is evident that this happened in reality, it is clear that he had previously heard how the most wicked Ahab, in proceeding to battle, would fall. For he wished to thrust a lie upon him in place of the truth, so that he might provoke a cause for war and destroy the unjust man more shamefully. Thus, by these events, it is manifest that the devil has ^A foreseen the evils that are brought upon the wicked, since he himself is the craftsman of all the worst things. Regarding Saul, however, whatever he added from his own nature and mingled with the oracles of Samuel, he not only lied convincingly, but spoke impiously and irreligiously. From this point, his first act of blasphemy is exposed: first, because in imitation—as the Lord said to the thief who had confessed the power of His kingdom, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43)—in the same way, the deceitful artisan, having finished his magical divinations for Saul, said: "Tomorrow you will be with me, and Jonathan your son" (1 Kings 28:19). Second, he wishes to show through these things that the just man differs in no way from the unjust, cleverly trying to suppress the endeavors and impulses of the pious. No one, it seems, is unaware that there is no communion between a believer and an ^B infidel, nor, again, how he who had wasted away in the feasts of abundant riches was separated and kept far from the company of Lazarus, although he had dared nothing against him. Indeed, he had exhibited no leavings or crumbs falling to the ground, but neither had he afflicted the man with blows, nor had he banished him further to another part of the earth after having tortured him with scourges. But when both had departed from here and exchanged life with death, the latter rested in the bosom of Abraham, the ancestor of the race, while the former was seized by perennial and inextinguishable flames. While he was being cremated and tortured in the underworld, he sees his progenitor from afar, and also sees Lazarus in his bosom; and being burned by the fire, he vehemently asked Abraham that he might send the beggar to him. For he was earnestly imploring that Lazarus, upon coming to him, might dip the tip of his finger in water and thereby ^C cool his tongue, touched by the moisture of the dew; thus, the wretched man, badly vexed by fiery torments, was making these supplications. And since the progenitor, in answering his requests, had replied that each person in their respective place had received just rewards in lieu of merit, he then added: "And in all these things, a great chaos is fixed between us and you, so that those who wish to cross from here to you cannot, nor can those from there cross to us" (Luke 16:26). If, therefore, there is a great chaos that separates the just from the unjust, so that those who are there cannot be transported here, nor those who dwell here be brought there, it is clearly manifest that Saul, who was unjust, does not dwell together with the prophet Samuel. For if the rich man and the poor man cannot together ^D

reach us. If, therefore, there is a gulf ^A separating the just from the unjust, in such a way that those on one side cannot cross over to the other, nor those from the other side arrive here, it follows that Saul, being unjust, is not with the prophet Samuel. For if the rich man cannot be with the poor man, even though he had done him no wrong and had not persecuted him, but had merely failed to share with him readily from what he had, how much more is the miserable man unworthy to enjoy the communion of the saints?

XV.

XVI.

^A studied to inquire into what was right with the due respect, but rather, while professing that the drama of the woman with the familiar spirit touched upon matters of universal concern, and invoking the truth for a necessary examination, he openly combats the truth itself. Afterwards, running through the praises of Samuel, as many as the divine Scriptures recount concerning him, he then again places him under the power of the demon, and expresses the matter in these very words and syllables: "Was, then, so great a man under the earth? And did the woman with the familiar spirit bring him up? Does a demon have power over a prophetic soul?" But these things, as if doubting or perhaps even questioning, he seems to others to say at times. But in order to confirm later through his perorations that these things are so, he adds with a certain louder clamor and shouting ^B and eloquence, "Are these things written? Verily, are they true or are they not true?" To say that they are not true leads to infidelity, which, as he himself says, will come upon the heads of those who speak it; but if they are true, they present to us a question and a difficulty. After this, again confirming what he introduces without investigation, and setting forth the opinions of those who differ with him, he adds: "And yet we know some of our own brothers who have looked against the Scripture, and say: 'I do not believe the woman with the familiar spirit. The woman with the familiar spirit says she saw Samuel; she lies.'" Many other things besides he intersperses, by which he openly rebukes all who pronounce the divinations of the woman with the familiar spirit to be false, and heaps curses upon the heads of those who do not believe her; and, thinking that he will easily persuade fickle minds with no trouble ^C, he strikes the narration upon the Scripture itself, saying: “Are these things written, or are they not written?” And by the force of his reasoning he repeats these same things: “Are these things true, or are they not true?” Yet he interjects for us a doubt and a scruple that the soul of the prophet had by no means been summoned. But to concede such things to a demon, what sin will that be? What impiety? He does not yet hesitate, nor, depraved by pure and mere madness, does he observe the mind. For no one else except God has the power of recalling and bringing up souls from the netherworld. Therefore, it must be answered here again: these things are indeed contained in the sacred Scriptures, but the author does not predict that it was done by his own person. For the book would not heap together many things at once that conflict with prophetic discourses, as we have shown before, and will show a little later, which was designating ^D the words of the woman with the familiar spirit and the furious knowledge of the king, detected as being full of the works of ignorance. For it will be neither fitting nor congruous to treat divine letters in this way. For since they themselves confess that the devil openly declares himself to be God, must we therefore believe him, and must everything be deferred to him on the sole account of the series of that narration, as Origen himself asserts? For that is written in the sacred letters. Or, again, when, puffed up with immoderate pride, he [seeks to overturn] the whole machine of this world all at once...

and its kingdoms belongs to him, should one from this perhaps conclude that he is the creator of all things? By no means, one would say; for the narrative voice has indeed delineated his boastful claims, but it does not declare them to be true; nor is there anyone who could ever prove this. ^A But there are countless such things to observe in addition to these; yet it is not possible to bring them all forward, lest by a long circumlocution we seem to evade the crux of the question.

XVII. Since, therefore, he appeared to have insulted those who think most correctly in no small measure, he again, not without obscurity, jumped to another opinion, and rhetorically inflating his discourse, among other things says that it is truly a horrible thing to conceive that the glorious Samuel, who is honored with a preeminent prophetic dignity, was among the inhabitants of Hades. ^B He repeats this quite like an old woman, over and over, driving his hearers from one point to another, because he tries to act against those deceived by his fraud. But we do not disagree about those things which all universally acknowledge, but about those which we know can truly be called into question. For it is not the point in dispute whether it was Samuel, but whether a demon has such power, namely, to call forth the souls of the just from Hades and send them back again. Since, therefore, he was caught red-handed pouring forth blasphemies, he deflects the ears of his listeners with deceitful art, and flees, as it were, to the person of Christ, ^C in order that, by collating Him with the holy men, he might demonstrate that Christ Himself also descended into Hades along with all the others. But, as he was proving this, he even chided the man individually, saying, "Why do you fear to say that every place needs both Christ Himself and the prophets?" Interjecting a few things in between, he weaves another blasphemy, revealing that even while Christ was happening to be below—to speak in this way—he says that while being in the lower place, by His volition He was above. For as if speaking of a man only, and no longer taking thought for His divine nature, he said that He had arrived in the lowest parts, but by volition had supposedly ascended above, just as, no doubt, all other men also do. ^D For so, he said, both the prophets and Samuel, even if they descend where the souls are—that is, the ones below—they are indeed able to be in the lower place, but they are not below by volition. And having resounded with frivolous talk to the infinite, he does not even understand this, that every person, even if he is very wretched, when he has descended into Hades, remains above by volition; for there would be no one, whether of the just or the unjust, who does not yearn to pass his time at the highest parts, and to be delivered from those subterranean places. If therefore all alike who have been led down into Hades desire the things above by volition, and some have not pursued a very righteous life, what kind of dignity was he clarifying for the prophetic choir? And what great thing did he proclaim concerning the Lord, rendering Him equal to everyone?

^A But he uttered the voice so ignorantly, not understanding that the Word was God; He is present everywhere all at once, not so much by choice as by the virtue of His divinity. And if He did permit His own visible temple to be dissolved, He immediately raised it up again on the third day in a new manner. His soul, coming down into the lowest parts of the earth, opened the gates there with a sudden impulse and brought out the souls held there; and it was so strengthened by divine power, through its communion with God and the Word, that it possessed all-encompassing authority.

XVIII. But indeed, I am persuaded that this conjecture of his is not at all light. For when He reached the subterranean places, at the same time He brought the thief’s soul into paradise that very day. For if salvation came to all mortals through one man, it is manifest that the soul redeemed souls of the same kind, both by entering into the subterranean parts of the abyss and by restoring to the most ancient station of paradise the one who was entering into the power of the unconquerable kingdom. Consistent with these things, the Son of God was testifying before they occurred, foretelling that *No one has ascended into heaven but He who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven*. Therefore, if He was declaring that the one originating from the human race had ascended into heaven alone out of all men, and from there had descended again hither, and after living here was journeying into heaven, it is evident that He accomplished these things by the power and a certain excellence of the soul. For the holy soul of Christ, living with God and the Word, illuminates all things at once and has ascended into that very highest heaven, into which no other of men has ascended; yet these things are imputed to the human form itself, which God and the Word sustained. But that the Son of God is present everywhere and suddenly, John himself also testified, having heard Christ Himself, and he cries out in a great voice regarding the Word: *No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known*. And yet, when Christ was living here, He was walking in the body while John was delivering these words; and he, having received His words, was preaching that He was in the bosom of the Father while He was living upon the earth together with that body. How then is it not to be understood that He was then also ^C ascending the heavens, and while He was living in the bosom of the Father, He walked upon the earth as it befitted God, and was present to all at once, as God?

XIX. But if anyone, suffering from Jewish blindness, does not accept the evangelical words, we must bring forward to him the oracles of Solomon, and we must frame our speech in this wise: *For while quiet silence held all things, and night in its own swiftness was in the middle of its course, Your all-powerful Word leaped from heaven out of royal thrones, a sharp sword, ^D bringing your unfeigned command, standing

^A and filling everything with death; and he touched the heaven, but his feet walked upon the earth. If, therefore, the only-begotten Son of God is proclaimed as the Word and God, of the same glory and company, through whom the angels, the heavens, the earth, the sea, the depths, and the star-wandering lights, and to comprise it in a word, the whole constitution of created things, have been made; and he, by a just judgment, temperately holding in his own possession the throne of the eternal kingdom from above, punishes the unjust with a sharp justice; indeed, being omnipotent in work and action, as God and Word of God, he touched the heaven, yet at the same time walked upon the earth — plainly, by the power of his divinity, he fills all things everywhere. If, then, he possesses such a nature, they are impious who inconsiderately think that the divine nature is circumscribed by a lack of will, or by some specific, limited part of a place; and Origen speaks ^B more out of ignorance than from a well-ordered mind, saying that when Christ had gone down to the lowest parts of the earth, he remained above in his intention. For he did not understand that, being God, he was present above by the desire of his will in such a way—insofar as the energy of his divinity fills all things to the greatest extent possible—that he satisfies all things everywhere.

XX. But let us concede that it is fitting for one to think these things about Christ who determines that prophetic souls are called up by a demon. The pythoness, as she gazed upon the demons that were inside her—exalting them as if they were brothers from the same womb and of the same mother—cries out that she has seen gods ascending from the earth. But the grandiose Origen did not fear to say that the demon did not only bring up the soul of the prophet, but, "Did not," he said, "other holy souls of prophets also ^C ascend with him?" And not satisfied with such madness, he even determined that the angels ascended along with their spirits; for he said that they came down there for the sake of the salvation of those in need. Thus, as it appears, Origen proposes great hopes for the angels and prophets—or rather, for the whole choir of saints—first by introducing them as being under the power of a demon, and then by declaring that they were brought up here by a raving woman to heal those who were suffering, as if they were led forth like captives. It does not seem to me that he speaks any less insanely than she did. For let it be so: he treated the holy men as if they were nothing, nor was he ashamed to insult the order of the angels who fly through the heavens. Let him who supports such an opinion ^D clearly show from where he took it, that he said that the angels who feast in the heavens ascend from the earth. For they have not come down into Hades bringing releases to the captives; rather, Christ, since he also set up a trophy against the enemy as a victor, and having snatched away the spoils of the captives, himself ascended in his body on high into the heavens. But the angels always stand before God, hastening to perform the worship that is due, but they do not dwell in Hades.

^A XXI. But, as it seems, Origen pretends not to understand, that he may inculcate superstitious deceits; then, having undertaken to allegorize all the Scriptures, he is not ashamed to interpret this passage strictly according to the letter, determining as if from an oracle, nor does he even judge rightly concerning the body itself. Indeed, while speaking of the paradise which God had planted in Eden, and while attempting to explain the manner in which the fruit-bearing trees sprouted, he adds, among other things: "When we, reading, ascend from the myths and the interpretation which is according to the letter, and ask what those trees are, he says, which God cultivates, we say that there are no sensible trees in that place." While he explains these things through interpretation, he does not shudder to call "myths" all the things which God is recorded to have created, and which Moses, the most faithful servant of God, consigned to writing. And, on the contrary, he establishes with dogmatic pronouncements those things which the myth, shape-shifting in the belly, obscurely suggests—representing them as if they were true doctrines. Contending that the words of the ventriloquist were dictated by the Holy Spirit, he wishes to attribute them to Scripture and have them remain unshaken, by ascribing to them the appearance of truth. But he calls the divine messages handed down through Moses "myths," inverts their meaning, and does not think it right that any should attend to the interpretation of the letter. ^B Does he not also allegorize the wells dug by Abraham and other things pertaining to them, and with such a great abundance of words, drawn out into the vast, resolve the whole business concerning them by transferring it to another sense, even though those wells may still be seen by the eyes in that region to this very day? Did he not distort the accounts of Isaac and Rebecca, saying that the earrings and bracelets were golden words, and finally, having distorted the whole argument by force, did he not corrupt them with his cavils, moving them to things that are perceived by the mind and understood by reason? Furthermore, in composing commentaries on Job, who suffered many things, he does not admire his tolerance, he does not extol his labors, he does not commend his virtue, he does not prove his faith, he does not describe examples of strength of mind, he does not exhort young soldiers to virtue by the greatness of his soul and the vigor of his prudence, and he does not arm the combatants to fight bravely for piety; but, having passed over all these things, he spent many words, in an old-womanish fashion, ^C on explaining the names of the daughters in a lofty manner. But as to the trifles he rambled on with regarding the name of Day, and Cassia, that is, the horn of Amalthea, it is not even possible to recount them; for they teem with every kind of mockery. Regarding Lazarus, I write ^D: instead of glorifying the great work of Christ and through these things clearly demonstrating that He is God, who by His authority summoned the corpse—already stinking—from the tombs, and by the emission of His word gave life to bodies already swollen with decay, he says nothing concerning this; but [he represents] Lazarus, the friend of the Lord, whom He not without reason loved for his virtue, as laboring in sins and dead. And no one has said these things against the just man,

^A nor did he commit such things to writing; for the Lord would not have followed him with such strong love, unless the manner of life which he professed had been divine.

Nor is it any less the case that, while considering the event of the stoning, since he endeavors to allegorize even this, he speaks falsely regarding the evangelical text. "We have not," he says, "upon examining the preceding passages, found that the Jews took up stones to cast at Him." And after a few words he adds: "For if they took them up again, they had taken them up before." He wishes, however, both in the preceding and in the following context, to prove that nothing of the sort had occurred, so that he may establish that they took up mere words, and not stones, carelessly against Him; even though the evangelist had said beforehand: "They took up therefore stones that they might cast at Him." ^B And when he had written these things, having interjected some one hundred and thirty-five verses, he adds: "The Jews therefore took up stones to stone Him." These things indeed are recorded in two places, and appear to have occurred at different times, because they do not have the same sequence or conjunction of words. But Origen himself, who imagines that he understands all the Scriptures, while writing these things, failed to recognize that the whole of that evangelical writing is to be taken literally.

XXII.

^A wrote sufficiently upon this theory, and showed clearly that he gave an opening to heretics unintentionally by defining the resurrection in terms of form, and not of the body itself. ^B But that he overturned everything with tropology, and sowed the seeds of his evil doctrine everywhere, is easy to see; and by tautologizing up and down, he filled the whole world with measureless babbling. By such a method, usually allegorizing everything in every way, he was not able to interpret the words of the Engastrimuthos merely in a figurative way, nor clearly to relate them from the sequence of the events themselves.

XXIII. What, furthermore, did he bring forward by inventing subterfuges for himself? Since the specter ^B appeared to have said to Saul, *The Lord shall rend the kingdom from thy hand*; ^C attempting to make this plausible, he added that there was no need to understand the demon as having prophesied concerning the Israelite kingdom. We said already above that the demon had stolen the words spoken previously by Samuel, so that, by deceiving the mindless Saul, he might seem to weave a discourse out of his own observations. But this man pretends not to be aware of such tricks of the devil. As, therefore, he seemed to predict that the kingdom of the madman would be rent away, he then added: *And he will give it to thy neighbor, David*. The polyhistor Origen, however, moved here, said: "As for the demon, he cannot know the kingdom of David, which was appointed by the Lord." But I am moved to wonder here in what way he has gained among many a reputation for sound judgment, as if he were at once wise and best in rendering opinions. For if the kingdom were obscure, perhaps he might not inaptly have dissembled that he in some way did not know it: but since God had testified concerning it, and David had been anointed by Samuel, and, always holding the first place in war, he had been made the king’s son-in-law, so that to him the dancing myriads sang, but to Saul they assigned only thousands; and if these things and such as these were manifest, what is strange or unexpected if the demon recognized the kingdom secured by divine suffrage through the prophet? For if we wish to speak the truth, we must not understand that he perceives only corporeal things, just as the use of oil has the application of touch, which the sense perceives. But no one will doubt that these things are known clearly to all. I will add, however, what exceeds the rest. If these things were not manifest, which is greater, let us compare: to recognize the kingdom of David through the unction of oil, or to have led up the souls of prophets from hades? And yet that was demonstrated concerning the better Person. ^D For demons, tormented by Christ, cry out unwillingly with these words: *What have we to do with thee, Son of God? Hast thou come to destroy us before the time?* But to send for souls from hades, and to call together in that same place the choirs of angels that fly through the sky, only God and his most divine Son has the power to do, and no one else at all. If, therefore, the invisible kingdom of God, anointed by the Holy Spirit...

they knew, could they not have known much better the kingdom of David through a visible anointing and a visible change? But the wicked one did not see the deeds which had taken place and were written down in the Scriptures concerning David, he who even approached the Lord when He was clothed in a body and said boldly: "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written: He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you do not strike your foot against a stone." (Matt. IV, 6). Therefore, if he pretends to converse from the holy Scriptures, he knows what is written, though in a warped way; if he was aware of these things, then he was certainly not ignorant of the kingdom of David, which was inscribed in the sacred letters. So, by stating what was written, the demon did not prophesy anything at all.

XXIV. BUT THE FAMOUS ORIGEN

^A in order to demonstrate from this duality the one divinity and the true generation of God. If that prophet who promised to show a sign or wonder is to be rejected in every way, because he introduces forbidden idolatry—even if the power of the sign actually occurs—how much more should one not trust a demon who promises to summon souls from Hades and the spirits of the just? Moreover, no one, however impious, would say that when those people were consulting the oracle, God, in order to test the impious one, raised up Samuel, so that the event might subsequently be attributed to the demon's promise, and by that name deceive some through fraud. For one had to be on guard against the sin of divination, just as the lawgiver had commanded. But do you not think their auguries and the causes of them are to be detested? Are not the vaticinations of the engastrimyths and the symbols of lots also to be detested? Hear what he commanded again shortly thereafter: "If you enter the land which the Lord your God gives to you, you shall not learn to do according to the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found in you one who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices divination, or interprets omens, or uses incantations, or a ventriloquist, or a scout of portents, or one who questions the dead: for everyone who does these things is an abomination to the Lord." ^B After this, hinting that for this reason he threatens death and destruction even to aliens, he immediately added: "For because of these abominations the Lord will destroy them from before you." It is manifest, therefore, that the vaticination of the engastrimyth is joined together with all the other causes of idolatry. For just as in fevers, internal filth kindles the disease and stirs up vicious humors, so that from the swelling and corruption they mostly bring on a pestilence, so too did he call the inspections of portents "sad visions," and by the history that is handed down concerning those things done through engastrimyths, he proved that nothing true is contained in them. Therefore, as I think, ^C he again brought forth a harsher judgment against them in Leviticus, pronouncing in these very words: "And a man or a woman, if they become ventriloquists or enchanters among you, let them be put to death; stone them with stones: they are guilty."

XXV. What then shall those say who contend that Origen's new opinions are to be embraced?

^A Thus, it is necessary to do one of two things: either reject these voices as useless, or denounce the words of the ventriloquist as stale and false. But what shall we say? Are the divine Scriptures at variance with themselves? Or does one vote contend against many? If, then, there is any conflict, the majority prevails. And yet, on the contrary, all are in unanimous agreement in the condemnation of the ventriloquists as those who act impiously. Moreover, it is recorded in the Fourth Book of Kings that Manasseh, in the excess of his impiety, in addition to the killings of the righteous, served in all respects those things that displayed the form of idols. "He made for himself," it says, "ventriloquists and gnostics." Conversely, however, King Josiah, who shone forth in the virtue of justice, pulled down all the handmade statues at once and destroyed them by burning them in the fire. ^B Indeed, among other things, he did what is worthy of mention: "He removed," he says, "the ventriloquists, and the gnostics, and the teraphim, and the idols, and the *karasaim*." Then, a few lines later, he says that he burned them as well, as being clearly unlawful. Therefore, if the same author is of both writings, and in this place he narrates the lives of two kings, and then presents the one as unjust—because among other things he chose ventriloquists—and praises the other as being stirred by zeal—because he destroyed the ventriloquists before all the enemies—if these things are so, it is established that he did not issue voices that were at war with themselves. Nor, again, did the Holy Spirit say that Samuel had ascended; rather, He recounted the words of the ventriloquist, that she, as it seemed and was imagined to her, boasted magnificently, emboldening the king with good hope through specters that were only dimly apprehended in her imagination. ^C For He would not have been at war with Himself or with all the other Scriptures. And these passages do not only refute these things, but another witness worthy of trust adds his vote to them: the prophet Isaiah, who sometimes forbids such abominations and at other times exhorted those subject to him most correctly, cries out: "And if they say unto you: Seek the ventriloquists, and those who call from the earth, who speak in vain, who speak from the belly; is there not a nation unto God?" Then, adding something after this, he brings forth: "Why," he said, "do they seek the dead concerning the living? For He gave the law for assistance,"—so that they might say, not as this word, for which there are no gifts to be given—with clear and holy voice he cast out the entire race of ventriloquists. ^D And if he declared such an assembly to be of empty talkers, he showed without doubt that none of them ever utters anything truthful at all, but they fabricate their deception with vain lies and fool the unlearned with stale and empty talk. Wherefore he not inappropriately mocked those who inquire of the dead concerning the living; for those empty talkers themselves, being dead and blind, pretend to convey the voices of the dead. Against whom the prophet testified, crying out that a law had already been laid down concerning these matters, so that they might not be led astray by the empty chatter of speech, just as those who are the authors of such things. For the firmest custody of the law is to implore heavenly aid, and not to...

seek assistance from earthly things, looking down toward those very subterranean places. ^A

XXVI. But Origen, who reckons himself to have interpreted all the Scriptures, pretends to be ignorant of these testimonies, nor does he use them as is fitting, but stuffs his work with things that are of no relevance to the subject, skipping over those which by their very nature were appropriate. If he did this through ignorance, he acted foolishly, as it seems; if through malice, he proceeded boldly. Indeed, when he had spoken in an ambiguous and doubtful manner—"What then does the ventriloquist do here? What then does the ventriloquist do regarding the bringing up of the soul of the just man?"—he escaped on high through the ambiguity of his speech, attributing that which he himself had done to others, while crediting the whole to Scripture; he confidently asseverates that Samuel had been brought up, but he does not dare to repeat the question a second time: "Who brought him up?" I, for my part, think that because he was rebuked by those who always hold the most correct opinions regarding the first interpretation, he responded in his second exposition by saying that the place of the ventriloquist had been observed. ^B Next, he adds the written text: "That some ventriloquist brought him up," and likewise "that Saul said to Samuel," has been handed down in the letters. He repeats many similar things in a hollow circuit of words again and again, then again he says: "But it does not state whether he ascended willingly. For you do not have," he says, "a text stating that the ventriloquist brought him up. If not, let someone who reads the Scripture refute me." Therefore, being refuted from the opposite side, he openly denied what he had previously thought inconsiderately. For there he had determined that it was the Scripture that spoke rather than the woman: "Whom shall I bring up for you?" But here, being clearly convicted, he endeavored to avoid the accusation through forgetfulness. Thus, he everywhere sets forth opinions contradictory to himself, just as here also, caught in the conflict and confusion of his opinions, he was compelled to escape the charge. Since, therefore, being led by some force, he confessed that the woman had not called up the prophet's soul, let him say who did bring it up. For he firmly held to this in that place, asserting only that she was called up. ^C The pythomantis, therefore, was the only one present, and Saul was the one requesting her to bring up the prophet. But this man could not be the author of the drama; for coming to her by night, he would not be praying to a ventriloquist. If, however, the deed followed, it must be attributed to no one else but the ventriloquist. Thus, it is necessary to affirm one of these two things: that this was never performed in any way, or that the upright man was brought up by the ventriloquist and the demon. Does he not, while seeming to deny his own words out of religion, fraudulently foist the same opinion upon us through a different method? But through the discourse by which he seems to defend himself, he inculcates a lie as if it were the truth. Nor are there enough to strike shame into him—so many and so great are the decrees of the lawgivers, the consonant testimonies of the prophets, and the one and same, remaining consensus of the historical record. ^D Nay more, having perverted the most holy oracles with a crooked reason, he freely confirms the words of the ventriloquist, decreeing more recent instruments for the cult of idols, which pla-

- ^A giarism of demonic divination he obtrudes. Its very compound name persuades us in what department it dwells, for *Engastrimythus* is interpreted as "ventriloquist" and "fable," as if demonstrating a fable fashioned in the belly. Now the composition of a fable within the belly, like a tent pitched in such a way, openly proclaims not the truth, but a lie. Much better, therefore, do those who are skilled in various reading know what its genus is: one who is not only himself utterly addicted to superstitious illusions, but who secretly introduces the superstitions of the gentiles.

XXVII. Nevertheless, we should not omit, even from this point, to rebuke his stupidity, as is fitting. For the traditions of rhetorical art explain quite clearly that a fable is a certain fiction, framed with delight for some necessary use in life. Now it is called a "fiction" because, as all equally confess, it is something "feigned." For it would not be called a fable if it had been done in reality. Therefore, if a fable is an improvised composition of a feigned matter, it is indeed far removed from the truth, yet it represents things by supplying subject matter for the *reason* even though it is devoid of *action*. For it suggests that things which do not exist possess plausibility, as if they were real, and introduces a feigned imitation into the narrative. Thus, it gives form to things that do not subsist, adorning them with shapes and figures, yet they are supported by no firmness, as far as that is possible. To me, indeed, the composition of a fable seems to differ nothing from the delineation of an inanimate shadow. For, as I think, it is fashioned in the likeness of a painting by its lines; and, looking toward a single part with a similar appearance, it feigns a person, and with lines drawn out it represents things—though not the things themselves—while ^B in all matters it observes a number, or rather an inequality, most significantly. It paints the beginnings and ends of wars, fitting them to their bases, as well as speaking lips, the peculiarities of voices, laughter, lamentations, or the public addresses of princes, banquets and revels, or Bacchic rites, or mysteries, or intemperate drunkenness, or amatory petulance, or the plunderings of thieves, or incurable ravages, or ruthless slaughters, or the pretense of poverty, or the influx of wealth. Iconology, therefore, characterizes all these things, while personification declares the actions that are like to those of men. For myth-makers, gathering together flowery words, create various kinds of colors and weave them with personification; then, coloring them with sweet words, they append the whole narration of the fable. And just as artists of images depict the beauty of the aspect, painting with red and flowery colors—as if painting with wax—so too, when they are compelled to accommodate the number by words and figures, they bind these things, as it were, with fetters, for the sake of truth, with heavy characters. But these men adorn the images of fables in this way; and from this is composed a certain musical harmony, and the discovery of poetic imagination. ^C

XXVIII. Indeed, Plato, when asked, defines music as consisting of "discourses," saying: there are two species of discourse, he said, the one true, the other false; and one must be instructed in both, but ^D

^A first in the mendacious. For previously he had said that children are soothed by the singing of fables. Therefore, it is the greatest and most excellent principle for every task; and especially so for any young and tender person. For then the figure of that thing is most shaped and induced which one wishes to imprint and seal upon each. By these statements, he tries to show that it is by no means necessary to occupy the minds of the young with excessive and pure falsehoods; since those marks of depraved opinion which are imprinted upon the minds of the very young can scarcely be pulled away or wiped out. Wherefore, he adds without interruption: "Shall we so easily permit the children to hear just any fables as they have been invented at random by just anyone, and to take into their souls opinions which are for the most part contrary to those which we believe they ought to have when they have reached a mature age?" "In no way," he said, "shall we permit it." "First of all, we must appoint censors for those storytellers, and if they have made a good fable, ^B we must select and approve it; but if a bad one, we must reject it. And those fables which we have selected, we shall take care that nurses and mothers recount them to the children, so that their minds may be informed and instructed by those fables much more than their bodies are cared for by their hands. But of those things which they currently recount, many must be rejected." Then, when he was questioned regarding the proportional difference of each, "In the greater fables," he said, "we shall see the lesser ones." When Adimantus, suggesting that he did not understand these things, asked again in return, he added: "The ones which both Hesiod and Homer have recounted to us. For these men have fabricated certain false fables which they have proposed to men, and which have already prevailed long ago, and still hold sway even now."

XXIX

XXX

and speaks with a sound mind; but the demon, dwelling in the inmost parts, feeds upon the mind itself and harms its reason, and from the belly he utters mythical fictions, constructing them; and transforming himself into various shapes, he leads the soul astray with diverse illusions. ^A Since he is many-faced and changes into all sorts of forms, he nonetheless also pretends to ascend from the earth and to cry out. And then, by changing the figures of his ministering limbs, he seems to present before the eyes one who is ascending other than the one who is calling him. But the same one, running hither and thither, changes the appearances, so that he may show by deeds and words that he is a liar. He makes a pretense, therefore, of bringing up the very persons of the dead, as it is natural to gather from such a spectacle; ^B he brings in, deceptively, spectral visions with a gloomy countenance, all sorrowful and full of the stench of the dead, presenting them as if they had been called up from Hades, and as if they had been released for a short time from a prison or from chains, and then passing again from there to here. Therefore, he also strikes fear into the soul with these sights, fashioning pale forms and horrid and downcast eyes, such as those of the dead are wont to be, who seem to be on the point of breathing their last. For, as a maker of such things, he accommodates himself through simulation to all terrible things. Sometimes, also, having summoned to his work demons not unlike himself, he brings up—not, however, the souls of the prophets, nor the spirits of the just, nor the angelic dignities—but, on the contrary, he was once pressed down ^C by the angels and delivered up to the best of men, so as to be trodden underfoot, cast down to the ground, and ruptured. While this one was brought down from those heights by a violent rush and laid his back upon the ground, it belongs to God alone, the Almighty, and to His most divine Son, to lead souls up from Hades and to have choirs of angels standing in order, which is a property that is unique, excellent, and singular to the divine nature.

SANCTUS EUSTATHIUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, ADDRESS TO THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE AT THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

(From Gregory the Presbyter of Caesarea, *Oration on the Nicene Fathers*; from Combefis, *Auctarium novissimum*, II, 555.)

^D We give thanks to God, best of emperors, who directs the earthly empire for you, who through you has abolished the error of idols and established the joyful hearts of the faithful in liberty. The stench of demons has ceased; the objects of worship of the Greek polytheism have been destroyed; the darkness of ignorance is driven away; the world is illuminated by the light of the knowledge of God; the Father is glorified, the Son is worshipped together with Him, the Holy Spirit is proclaimed: the Trinity, consubstantial, one